The Divisional Manager vs Gangadhar S/O Bheemappa Koppad
2023 Latest Caselaw 1 Kant

                           -1-




                                        WP No. 116077 of 2019



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                        BEFORE
     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
     WRIT PETITION NO. 116077 OF 2019 (GM-RES)


BETWEEN:

     THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
     NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
     ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD,
     HUBBALLI,
     R/BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
                                           ...PETITIONER
       (BY SRI NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   GANGADHAR S/O. BHEEMAPPA KOPPAD,
     AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
     R/O: KURUBAGOND,
     TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI.

2.   AYAZ AHAMED S/O ABDUL MAZEED MAKANDAR
     AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE LORRY,
     R/O: MAKANDAR GALLI,
     BHANDIWAD BASE,
     HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD,
     (OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO.KA-25/1541)
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
COMPROMISE AWARD DATED 16.09.2017 SETTLED BEFORE
THE LOK ADALATH ON THE FILE OF ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE &
MACT. HAVERI IN MVC NO.361/2014 AS PER ANNEXURE-F AS
                               -2-




                                            WP No. 116077 of 2019



WELL AS THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2019 PASSED IN CIVIL
MISC.NO.25/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, HAVERI AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DIRECT THE
TRIBUNAL TO DISPOSE OF THE CLAIM PETITION ON MERITS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

In this petition the petitioner is sought for the

following reliefs :

"a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the compromise award dated 16.09.2017 settled before the Lok Adalath on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & MACT. Haveri in MVC No.361/2014 as per Annexure-F as well as the order dated 14.10.2019 passed in Civil Misc. No.25/2018 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Haveri and consequently to direct the Tribunal to dispose of the claim petition on merits in accordance with law.

b. To grant such other order or relief to which the petitioner may be found entitled to under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."

WP No. 116077 of 2019

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-

Insurance Company and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that

during pendency of the subject MVC.No.361/2014 before

the M.A.C.T., Haveri the matter was referred to the

monthly National Lok-Adalath on 09.09.2017 on which

date, the matter was settled before the Lok-Adalath as

under :

"Case called out before Monthly National Lok- Adalath.

Petitioner, Advocate for petitioner and advocate for respondent No.2 present.

The advocate for petitioner and advocate for respondent No.2 submit that the petitioner has agreed to settle the matter for Rs.2,00,000/-.

Both the parties have filed a joint memo agreeing for settlement for Rs.2,00,000/-.

Petition against respondent No.1 is dismissed as not pressed in view of memo filed by advocate for petitioner.

The respondent No.2 being insurer of vehicle has agreed to pay global compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner, same is agreed by advocate for petitioner. Hence the matter is settled

WP No. 116077 of 2019

for Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, we proceed to pass the following :

ORDER Joint memo filed by the petitioner and respondent No.2 is hereby accepted.

As agreed by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 is directed to deposit compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- within 2 months from the date of this order. In default, it will carry interest at the rate of 7% p.a. After deposit of the said amount Rs.2,00,000/- shall be released by way of account payee cheque in favour of petitioner on due identification and verification.

Office to draw award accordingly. Return file to regular Court."

4. Pursuant thereto, the compromise award vide

Annexure-C also passed whereby the petitioner-Insurance

Company agreed to pay sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of

the claimant by way of global compensation.

Subsequently, the petitioner-Insurance Company filed

review petition in Civil Miscellaneous No.25/2018 interalia

contending that a joint memo had not been filed and that

joint memo had not sent by the petitioner-Insurance

WP No. 116077 of 2019

Company and not filed and subsequently, since the

petitioner was totally unaware of the joint memo and the

compromise award, the impugned compromise award

deserves to be set aside.

5. The said review petition was taken up for

consideration before the M.A.C.T. which rejected the said

review petition holding as under :

"9. REASONING ON POINT NO.1:- At the outset only, to decide this petition effectively, this court has called for the entire records in MVC No.361/2014. On going through the entire records in the said case, it becomes clear that, respondent No.1 herein has filed claim petition in MVC No.361/2014 before this court seeking compensation for injuries sustained by him in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 occurred on 28.09.2003. In the said case, both the respondent No.2 and petitioner have appeared through their respective counsels. After conclusion of evidence of respondent No.1 herein, as can be seen from the order sheet dated 10.08.2017, matter was referred to Lok Adalath on 12.08.2017. Again the matter was sent back to Court by order dated:

12.08.2017. Again as per order dated: 06.09.2017,

WP No. 116077 of 2019

the matter was referred to Lok Adalath to be held that on 09.09.2017. On 09.09.2017, matter was called before Lok Adalath and Lok Adalath has passed following order;

"Case called out before Monthly National Lok-Adalath.

Petitioner, Advocate for petitioner and Advocate for Respondent No.2 present. The advocate for petitioner and Advocate Respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner has agreed to settle the matter for Rs.2,00,000/-.

Both the parties have filed a joint memo agreeing for settlement for Rs.2,00,000/-.

Petition against Respondent No.1 is dismissed as not pressed in view of memo filed by advocate for petitioner.

The Respondent No.2 being insurer of vehicle has agreed to pay global compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner, same is agreed by Advocate for petitioner.

Hence, the matter is settled for Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:

"ORDER Joint memo filed by the petitioner and respondent No.2 is hereby accepted.

WP No. 116077 of 2019

As agreed by the petitioner, the Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit

compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- within 2 months from the date of this order. In default, it will carry interest at the rate of 7% p.a. After deposit of the said amount Rs.2,00,000/- shall be released by way of account payee cheque in favour of petitioner on due identification and verification.

Office to draw Award accordingly. Return file to regular court.

      Sd/-                                      Sd/-
Advocate Conciliator                    Judicial Conciliator"

10. Now the said order of Lok Adalath is sought to be reviewed on the ground that, insurer-petitioner has not at all filed joint memo before the Lok Adalath and it has agreed to settle the matter subject to verification of policy coverage in respect of the offending vehicle. It is also true that, on searching entire records, joint memo stated to be filed by both the parties as narrated in the above extracted order of Lok Adalath dated: 09.09.2017 is not at all available.

11. In the instant case, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has produced certificate of insurance in respect of offending vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA-25/1541 which reveals that, effective

WP No. 116077 of 2019

date of commencement of insurance was from 00.00 hours on 16.06.2003 to midnight of 15.06.2004. However, in the second page, at the bottom, it stated that, it is with effect from 29.09.2003. It is needless to state that, if there are conflicting versions in the policy, the policy is to be construed in its entirety and when effective date was given from 16.06.2003 midnight till 15.06.2004 midnight, the effective date even in the bottom as 29.09.2003 becomes redundant. Of course this aspect may not loom large in the present case as both the parties advanced arguments on maintainability of the petition. Evidently, matter in MVC No.361/2014 was settled before the Lok Adalath. Settlement before the Lok Adalath and its legal effect are covered by Section 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Section 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 deals with award of Lok Adalath. The said provision reads as under:

"Section 21 in The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

21. Award of Lok Adalat.--1[ (1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of section

WP No. 116077 of 2019

20, the court- free paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).]--1[(1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of section 20, the court- free paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).]"

(2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award".

12. The above extracted provision interalia lays down that, the award of the Lok Adalath shall be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court and it becomes final and binding on all parties to the dispute. The provision also lays down that, no appeal shall lie to any court against said authority. Now let me consider the scope and ambit of review petition.

13. The core question arises for determination is whether, in what circumstances the court can exercise its power to review its own order as contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of

- 10 -

WP No. 116077 of 2019

Civil Procedure, 1908. For convenient purpose, Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is culled out herebelow.

"1. Application for review of judgment.-(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved,-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on reference from a Court of Small Causes,

and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, my apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by

- 11 -

WP No. 116077 of 2019

some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.

Explanation.- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment."

14. At this juncture, it is significant to place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2014 SAR (CIVIL) 1 (N. Anantha Reddy Vs. Anshu Kathuria and Ors.). In this decision, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of review jurisdiction, which reads as under:

"9. A careful look at the impugned order would show that the High Court had a fresh look at the question whether the appellant could be impleaded in the suit filed by the respondent No.1 and, in the light of the view which it took, it recalled its earlier order dated 08.06.2011. The course followed by the High Court is clearly flawed. The High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction by reconsidering the merits of the order dated 08.06.2011. The review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order/judgment does not call for review. The mistake apparent on record means that the

- 12 -

WP No. 116077 of 2019

mistake is self evident, needs to search and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits."

15. The principles emerging from this decision make it clear that unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order does not call for review. What is the meaning of the phraseology "mistake apparent on face of record" is also explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India stating that mistake apparent on record means that mistake is self evident, needs no search and stares at its face. Review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits.

16. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2019 (2) KCCR 1052 (A. Basker Vs. Smt. Yogini dead by her Lrs.) wherein it is held as under:

"Summary of the Principles:

16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

(A) When the review will be maintainable:-

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

- 13 -

WP No. 116077 of 2019

16.1 The words 'any other sufficient reason' has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki, [AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v.

Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., [(1955) 1 SCR 520], to mean 'a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule'. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., [JT 2013 (8) SC 275].

 (B) When        the      review     will   not   be
maintainable.

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re- heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

- 14 -

WP No. 116077 of 2019

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived".

17. To the same effect, he has also relied upon the decision of Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2018 (5) KCCR 879 (Smt.Padmaja S. Vs. Captain (Retd.) V.R. Srinivas) wherein it is held as under:

"The review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. The quintessential aspect for review is the error apparent on the face of the record. The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record from the arguments now advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to review the order. It is well settled legal principle that the scope of review is limited. Review is not an appeal in disguise. The arguments now canvassed have been considered and negatived by this court as narrated in the preceding paragraphs. Hence, we do not find any ground to review the order as sought for. Hence, there is no merit in review petition and deserves to be dismissed".

18. Under the guise of review, the court cannot sit in appeal over its own order. Moreover, the order was passed by Lok Adalath which becomes final and binding between the parties as per Section 21 of Legal Services Act, 1987. If at all there is illegality in the order passed by Lok Adalath, the remedy lies to the petitioner herein to challenge it before the higher

- 15 -

WP No. 116077 of 2019

echelons of judiciary. As far as review petition is concerned, there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the order of Lok Adalath dated: 09.09.2017.

19. When Lok Adalath passes an award, it is not at all amenable to appeal. When it is not at all amenable to appeal, review petition is also not maintainable and the only remedy for the aggrieved party is to be challenge it before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka under Order 226 and 227 of Constitutional of India. In this connection, it is relevant to place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a decision reported in 2017 SAR (Civil) 1058 (Bharvagi Constructions and Another Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Others) wherein it is held as under:

"25) The question arose before this Court (Three Judge Bench) in the case of State of Punjab (supra) as to what is the remedy available to the person aggrieved of the award passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Act. In that case, the award was passed by the Lok Adalat which had resulted in disposal of the appeal pending before the High Court relating to a claim case arising out of Motor Vehicle Act. One party to the appeal felt aggrieved of the Award and, therefore, questioned its legality and correctness by filing a writ petition under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding it to be not maintainable. The aggrieved party, therefore,

- 16 -

WP No. 116077 of 2019

filed an appeal by way of special leave before this Court. This Court, after examining the scheme of the Act allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. This Court held that the High Court was not right in dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable.

It was held that the only remedy available with the aggrieved person was to challenge the award of the Lok Adalat by filing a writ petition under Article 226 or/and 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very limited grounds. The case was accordingly remanded to the High Court for deciding the writ petition filed by the aggrieved person on its merits in accordance with law.

26) This is what Their Lordships held in Para 12:

"12. It is true that where an award is made by the ok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits."

- 17 -

WP No. 116077 of 2019

27) In our considered view, the aforesaid law laid down by this Court is binding on all the Courts in the country by virtue of mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has laid down that challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very limited grounds.

28) In the light of clear pronouncement of the law by this Court, we are of the opinion that the only remedy available to the aggrieved person(respondents herein/plaintiffs) was to file a writ petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court for challenging the award dated 22.08.2007 passed by the Lok Adalat. It was then for the writ Court to decide as to whether any ground was made out by the writ petitioners for quashing the award and, if so, whether those grounds are sufficient for its quashing."

20. Again this principle is echoed in the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2019(1) KCCR 212 (Ananth Kumar S.C. Vs. Basamma @ Bindu and Others) wherein it is held as under:

"9. On going through the said Section, it makes it very clear that every award of Lok Adalath shall deem to be a decree by a Civil court and an order of Lok Adalath shall be final and binding on all the parties tot he dispute and no appeal shall lie to any court against the said award, it makes it very clear that any settlement arrived before the Lok Adalat it

- 18 -

WP No. 116077 of 2019

cannot be challenge before any other forum. In this behalf except for a limited purpose challenge under Article 226 or 227 of Constitution of India. Admittedly, the records clearly goes to how that a joint memo has been filed by the parties and by order dated; 30.09.2015 that the compromise entered into has been accepted and in terms of the compromise the petition filed under the Domestic Violence Act has been disposed of, that itself clearly goes to show that the said order of the Lok Adalat covers under Section 20 of the Act and as per Section 21(2) of the Act, it is very clear that the said award and the award bounds on all parties and no appeal shall lied against the award. The trial court without considering the said fact has entertained the said appeal and has erroneously without application of mind has set aside, even the said proposition of law has been also laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Punjab and Another Vs. Jalour Singh and Others (quoted supra) at paragraphs No.12 it has been observed as under:-

"12. It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties

- 19 -

WP No. 116077 of 2019

(which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Aadalath), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a Civil Court, and no appeal lies against it to any Court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 26 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order or the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the orders, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits".

10. On going through the said proposition of law, it is clear that, if any party wants to challenge the said award based on settlement it can be done by filing a petition under articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, that too on very

- 20 -

WP No. 116077 of 2019

limited ground, but no appeal and other proceedings are maintainable in this behalf. In the light of proposition of law and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned order of the Court below is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. But, however, the opportunity given to the parties to file an appropriate proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, if they have agreed by the compromise entered into as per order dated 30.09.2015. Accordingly, Revision Petitions are allowed. The orders passed by the LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-69) in Criminal Appeal No.1530/2015 and Criminal Appeal No.801/2015, both dated 27.10.2017 are set aside".

21. In view of principles emanating from these decisions, the review petition is not at all maintainable and petitioner if at all aggrieved by the award passed by Lok Adalath, dated: 01.09.2017, it has to file writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. On this ground also, review petition is not at all maintainable.

- 21 -

WP No. 116077 of 2019

22. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has relied upon the following decisions:

1. 2019 SAR (Civil) 246 (Sneh Lata Goel Vs. Pushplata and Others)

2. 1970 SUPREME COURT 1475 (Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi Vs. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and Others)

3. 2019(1) KCCR 703 (Kotal Securities Ltd., Bangalore Vs. Mr. Chethan Bhandary and Another)

4. 2009 ACJ 2791 (Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Ozma Shipping Co. and another)

23. These decisions pertain powers of executing court. Now in this petition, we are not at all dealing with power f executing court. Therefore, these decisions may not be applicable to the facts of the present case.

24. One more facet of the case which requires to be noticed is that, it is also important to note that, Order of the Lok Adalath was passed on 09.09.2017 and present petition is filed on 01.12.2018. There is delay of more than 1 year 3 months in filing this petition. In the instant application, the petitioner has not at all filed an application for condonation of delay. Hence, on this count also, the review petition is not at all maintainable. Hence, looking from any angle, the review petition is sans merit, which is not at all maintainable. Therefore, it is liable to be

- 22 -

WP No. 116077 of 2019

dismissed at the threshold. Hence, considering all these aspects of the case and totality of the circumstances, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.

25. REASONING ON POINT NO.2:- For the reasons stated above point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER Review petition filed by the petitioner under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and under Section 169(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is hereby rejected as not maintainable.

Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs."

6. As could be seen from the order passed by the

M.A.C.T. rejecting review petition filed by the petitioner-

Insurance Company, the M.A.C.T. has come to the

conclusion that there was no error apparent on the face of

record warranting interference under Section 114 read

with Order XLI Rule 1 of C.P.C. The M.A.C.T. also noticed

that the review petition was not maintainable against a

compromise award passed by the Lok-Adalath. The

- 23 -

WP No. 116077 of 2019

M.A.C.T. has also held that there was unexplained and

inordinate delay and laches on the part of the Insurance

Company in filing the review petition. Under these

circumstances, the M.A.C.T. proceeded to dismiss the

review petition. Aggrieved by the Lok-Adalath compromise

award as well as dismissal of the review petition, the

petitioner-Insurance Company is before this Court by way

of the present petition.

7. The primary contentions urged by the petitioner in

the present petition are nothing reiteration of the

contentions urged in the review petition to the effect that

joint-memo was not sent/signed on behalf of the

petitioner-Insurance Company and that the same was not

available before the M.A.C.T. or before the Lok-Adalath at

the time of passing of compromise award or considering

the review petition. It is however relevant to state that

there are no allegations by the petitioner-Insurance

Company against the learned counsel who appears or

- 24 -

WP No. 116077 of 2019

against the Members of the Lok-Adalath who passed the

impugned compromise award.

8. Apart from the fact that the said aspect of the

matter is correctly and properly appreciated by the

M.A.C.T. at the time of considering the review petition, the

impugned Lok-Adalath compromise award will also indicate

that said proceedings before the Lok-Adalath comprising of

a Judicial Conciliator and Non-Judicial Conciliator not only

refers to a joint memo having been filed but the same had

been accepted and agreed by the petitioner-Insurance

Company. In fact the impugned award also refers to a

memo filed seeking dismissal of the claim petition as

against the owner of the offending vehicle. The impugned

Lok-Adalath compromise award also records the fact that

the learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company

and the 1st respondent-claimant were present when the

matter was called out. Under these circumstances, I am of

the considered opinion that, the impugned Lok-Adalath

award does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity

- 25 -

WP No. 116077 of 2019

warranting interference by this Court in exercise

jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

of India. So also, the impugned award passed by the

M.A.C.T. rejecting the review petition is also correct and

proper in as much as there is no error apparent on the

face of record. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the

petition and same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly it

is dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

CKK